What, exactly, is the rationale for establishing "sanctuary cities?"

- Should local police be mandated to themselves follow federal law. I say "Yes".

I have stated my opinion on the inability for Federal government to force local police to enforce laws that American Citizens living in these areas don't want enforced.

1. No one here is suggesting "open borders". I am suggesting that if there is a reasonable immigration policy that reflects what I see as the values of the country (as I see them), then I would wholeheartedly support their enforcement. Disagreement with today's immigration laws is not "open borders". I would also point out that today's immigration laws are really messed up because they were created by political forces pulling in multiple directions.

2. You are missing the point about local police. And you are confusing several issues.

- Should local police should be mandated to enforce federal law. I say "No".
- Should local police be mandated to themselves follow federal law. I say "Yes".
- Should federal police be able to operate in local communities to enforce federal law. I say "Yes".
- Should federal police be mandated to themselves follow federal law.. I say "yes".

We disagree on the first one, I think... although courts side with me. It seems like Glennn at least disagrees with me on the fourth.

For me to tell my local police (who work for me and are paid by me) that I don't want them to enforce federal law is not civil disobedience. The local police are there to enforce local law and to meet the needs of the community.

You are missing the point about local police. And you are confusing several issues.

This "anti-commandeering" doctrine, however, doesn't protect sanctuary cities or public universities — because it doesn't apply when Congress merely requests information. For example, in Reno v. Condon (2000), the Court unanimously rejected an anti-commandeering challenge to the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, which required states under certain circumstances to disclose some personal details about license holders.

Is this a basic problem with English comprehension?

maxdancona wrote:

Is this a basic problem with English comprehension?

No, but there certainly is with yours. At a minimum, you don't even know what "sanctuary laws" entail. Notwithstanding the fact that I have summarized them for you, again, very early in this thread, and have even posted articles about particular provisions of California law which prohibits private employers from complying with federal law, under threat of state prosecution.

Geez ... the California law prohibits private employers from enforcing federal law. These word games are silly. You can look up the word "comply" in the dictionary if you really don't know what it means.

And read the case I just cited ( Reno v. Condon (2000), along with the federal statute I pasted just a short while back (8 U.S. Code § 1373 - Communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service).

The courts, and reality, disagree with you Layman.

The good cheese eating American citizens of the great state of California have spoken.

For Pav Sterry of Columbus, Ohio, legalizing any undocumented immigrants — even those who came as children without a choice in the matter — is just plain wrong.

Huy Pham of St. Paul believes any concessions for the so-called Dreamers will unleash another tidal wave of illegal immigration. And Daniel Cotts of Phoenix regards “blanket amnesty” for them as unfair to foreigners who languish for years waiting to come here the legal way.

Poll after poll has shown that a large majority of Americans support protections for young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children.

Yet there remains a slice of the American public for whom the idea of legalizing an undocumented immigrant has not gotten better with age.

Many sanctuary laws have been challenged in court, and have not been found to have violated any sanctuary laws. the issue will be left as an exercise for the reader. (hint: try googling 'why sanctuary laws do not violate 8 u.s. code 1373').

Layman's argument has already lost in court... and that is what matters.

Section 2(B) of S. B. 1070 requires state officers to make a “reasonable attempt . . . to determine the immigration status” of any person they stop, detain, or arrest on some other legitimate basis if “reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §11–1051(B) (West 2012). The law also provides that “[a]ny person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.” Ibid. The accepted way to perform these status checks is to contact ICE, which maintains a database of immigration records.

The United States and its amici [i.e. Obama and his homeys] contend that, even with these limits, the State’s verification requirements pose an obstacle to the framework Congress put in place....The United States argues that making status verification mandatory interferes with the federal immigration scheme....

Congress has obligated ICE to respond to any request made by state officials for verification of a person’s citizenship or im-migration status. See §1373(c); see also §1226(d)(1)(A) (requiring a system for determining whether individuals arrested for aggravated felonies are aliens)...Congress has done nothing to suggest it is inappropriate to communicate with ICE in these situations...

It would be inappropriate to assume §2(B) will be construed in a way that creates a conflict with federal law....As a result, the United States cannot prevail in its current challenge.

Sanctuary Cities? That's a Constitutional 'Hell No'

The spurious legal argument that §1373 violates the anti-commandeering principle was raised by the City of New York in a lawsuit against the federal government only 11 days after the provision became federal law. New York also had a policy in place that forbade city officials from transmitting information on the immigration status of any individual to federal immigration authorities. In City of New York v. U.S. (1999), the Second Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the city’s case because the federal law was constitutional and well within congressional authority on immigration.

"The City’s sovereignty argument asks us to turn the Tenth Amendment’s shield against the federal government’s using state and local governments to enact and administer federal programs into a sword allowing states and localities to engage in passive resistance that frustrates federal programs....

"Absent any cooperation at all from local officials, some federal programs may fail or fall short of their goals unless federal officials resort to legal processes in every routine or trivial matter, often a practical impossibility. For example, resistance to Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954), was often in the nature of a refusal by local government to cooperate until under a court order to do so."

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith, becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming, in every facet, an American and nothing but an American...

There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American People.